DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Attaching a photo of the knee and knee brace are useless. You
will need to get a doctors letter confirming the temporary
disability. How long has the driver had this disability?
#Post#: 61255--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 7, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good advice from DWBM2 about how to word the appeal. Keep it to
the point.
#Post#: 61257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 7, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Attaching a photo of the knee and knee brace are useless. You
will need to get a doctors letter confirming the temporary
disability. How long has the driver had this disability?
>
--- End Quote ---
OK
he has had the disability for circa 15 years, knee replaced
circa 10 years ago.
#Post#: 63476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 20, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, the attached letter was received today. No acknowledgement
of the driver's mobility issues raised in the initial latter but
a continued request to try to get the driver's identity from the
keeper. Any advice on the next step anyone please?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 63477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 20, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> In this case, yes, it is better to appeal as the driver. They
will need to provide some evidence of their disability.
>
--- End Quote ---
I thought the appeal had already named the driver, in order to
provide evidence of the disability?
#Post#: 63482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 20, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
no the appeal was by the keeper who confirmed that the driver
was mobility impaired, asking that Parkingeye to reconsider the
consideration period in view of that. given the potential
defects in the NtK the keeper wanted to first mention the
driver's mobility impairments. should the keeper now divulge
the driver's identity and so rely entirely on the disability?
one poster was going to draft a letter but did not post. the
driver does not want to trouble his GP at this stage for
correspondence confirming that the knee has been replaced
because this can be evidenced by scars confirming the fact that
the knee has in fact been replaced.
#Post#: 63735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 22, 2025, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any suggestions as to how to progress?
I was originally hoping for a draft letter afterI posted the NtK
but when one was not posted I had a go at drafting as I had
found another thread where Parkingeye were the offending
company. My second draft following comment noted that the
appeal was as keeper (not as driver) and the main comment seemed
to relate to the evidence to be provided to support the mobility
impairment and not the nature of who should be appealing, so the
appeal was in the capacity of keeper, not as driver.
Could anyone let me have an indication of whether the keeper's
response to this latest correspondence from Parkingeye should be
by the keeper or whether the keeper should now identify the
driver.
It does not seem clear to me whether the original NtK is
sufficiently defective that Parkingeye cannot hold the keeper
responsible in any event.
I am trying to assist the keeper (who is unable to deal with
this) and feel a bit like the blind leading the blind at the
moment.
#Post#: 63740--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: b789
Date: March 22, 2025, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So did you appeal as the Keeper and not identified the driver? I
am not absolutely clear whether you are the Keeper and you are
appealing as the Keeper because you were not the driver, or
whether your friend is the Keeper and a different driver is the
subject of this.
I really hope you or your friend or whoever sent the appeal
didn't just attach some random photos of the knee as "evidence"
of the drivers disability. I already told you that a photo of
the knee or a brace is not going to do the job!!!
The response from ParkingEye is a standard template letter that
appears to:
[indent]• Ignore the content of the appeal, especially the
detailed explanation regarding the driver’s disability;
• Misstate PoFA by citing Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(b) while
ignoring the requirement for full compliance under 9(2)(f)–(h)
to establish Keeper liability;
• Attempt to shift liability onto the Keeper without addressing
the failure to form a contract or their duty to make reasonable
adjustments under the Equality Act 2010;
• Omit any reference to the Equality Act or the supplied medical
evidence, which suggests the appeal was not meaningfully
considered.[/indent]
However, evidencing a protected characteristic under the
Equality Act 2010 requires more than a photo of a scar or brace.
For the mitigation to be properly considered under the Equality
Act, the Keeper (on behalf of the driver) should ideally provide
a written statement from a medical professional, such as:
[indent]• A GP or consultant’s letter stating the nature and
duration of the impairment;
• Confirmation that the condition substantially affects the
driver’s mobility;
• A statement indicating that the condition is long-term and
meets the statutory definition of a disability under section 6
of the Equality Act 2010
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/6.[/indent]
The strongest grounds lie in the Equality Act mitigation, and it
is strategically cleaner for the Keeper to now name the driver
and transfer liability, since:
[indent]• The Equality Act defence only applies to the driver,
and
• POPLA (or any future court claim) would require evidence of
the driver’s protected characteristic, which the Keeper cannot
assert on their own account.[/indent]
This is my suggested response to the letter from ParkingEye:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert Reference]
>
> Date of Issue: [Insert Date]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Further to your recent correspondence, I now confirm the
identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged
incident.
>
> The full name and current address for service of the driver
is:
>
> [Full Name of Driver]
> [Driver’s Postal Address]
>
> In accordance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I am no longer liable for this
Parking Charge Notice, and you are now required to pursue the
driver directly.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, this transfer of liability is made
within the applicable time limits set out in Schedule 4, and the
information provided is accurate. Please confirm that I will
receive no further correspondence regarding this matter.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full Name of Keeper]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
This shifts the matter to the driver, allowing the full Equality
Act mitigation to be developed on their behalf in any subsequent
appeal. The driver can then prepare a disability-based
mitigation case supported by GP evidence, if necessary.
#Post#: 63908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789. The keeper was the driver. I am a friend and
unrelated but able to at least try to gain knowledge from this
website and to post documents for comment, which my friend is
unable to do.
Following your earlier advice, no photos were sent to evidence
the medical issues, merely the narrative in the second draft
letter.
I shall tweak your draft response to reflect the fact that the
keeper was in fact the driver.
In that response, given that Parkingeye completely ignored the
earlier reference to the driver's mobility impairment, should
the driver's description of what occurred and the fact that his
impairment was the cause of the extended consideration period be
included again?
#Post#: 63939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: b789
Date: March 24, 2025, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless you can get the driver to obtain a letter from their GP
or Consultant that confirms their disability and that has lasted
or is going to last for over 12 months, then they ParkingEye are
not going to care and neither will they be obliged to unless the
evidence it put before them.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page